On 6/27/2015 11:58 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Don't you suspect that the conclusion that phenomena can have an effect, sans cause, is largely because our ability to measure phenomena, is limited by our equipment, that isn't sophisticated or refined sufficiently to detect the true cause? Believe it or not, for many years, the belief that stars didn't have planets was a majoritarian view of astronomers. A few took the view that planets could be detected around other stars with improvements in telescopes and watch unseen planets jiggle their parent star, via gravity. I may be too thick to appreciate randomness, but I suspect they must follow laws of physics, either unperceived, or considered unrelated to to observed, effects. I surely could be wrong, but since random number generators have been coded by generations of programmers, students, engineers, it can't be unpredictable, deep down, maybe?
It can be random, deep down, because that's exactly how quantum theory is constructed. QM explicitly rules out randomness just being a limitation of measurement. Of course QM could be wrong - but there's no evidence that it is and there's an enormous body of evidence that it's right.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
